Really? You don't consider the fact that the Galaxy S has three buttons at the bottom rather than one to be a significant difference?

If they were physical buttons, of course, but the fact that they are smooth touch buttons means that they appear as decoration, kind of like the logo. Why, if Samsung thought that 3 buttons were necessary didn't they add three identical ones? Why not 3 physical buttons, or 3 touch buttons? I mean honestly, if you were designing a phone, and you thought you needed 3 buttons, would you really choose to make them different? You can construct all sorts of plausible arguments to explain this, but in the context that everything else looks so much like the iPhone, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion that it's a blatant copy.

Lots of people have brought up all sorts of justifications as to why it isn't a copy, but they relate to details that are effectively grasping at straws. One person even mentioned the logo FFS!

People's stubbornness to accept that they have ripped off so many of the Apple's design features (look at the tablet vs the iPad - the only evident different is the proportions) is really unhelpful. What do people get out of denying some of the most obvious things?

I'm not anti-Samsung, as I have been careful to stress, but ignoring basic IP theft is just wrong, and it sets a dangerous precedent. It means that there is no protection for a company who spends a lot of time and money developing a product, from someone stealing their ideas. The issue is clouded for a lot of people by the fact that it is Apple involved, the richest company in the world.

If it was the Nest thermostat that had been ripped off by a large Chinese or Korean company, I suspect the vast majority of people (particularly in the US) would be justifiable incensed. A small, innovative US company producing a truly new and ground breaking product effectively having its lunch stolen by an unscrupulous foreign competitor. They would be right there cheering for the little guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

While I agree with you that many cues were taken from the iPhone 3G it is ludicrous to suggest that they 'copied it in its entirety'.

By this I mean that every significant feature was copied, proportions, appearance, operation, interface; together with some insignificant ones like the charger and packaging. Of course Samsung had to do something to differentiate the product. The shape of the centre button, the visible logo and the 'kick' on the back of the case are the most obvious features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

If you were to follow my posts for the last couple of years you will see that I have been persuaded that the Galaxy S does infringe in certain areas on the design patent

Well perhaps that's expecting a little much from someone who ono joined the forum a week or so ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

- I was originally a staunch defender - however on one aspect my opinion has not changed: if you have both an iPhone 3G and a Galaxy S side by side it is impossible to mistake one for the other.

There are lots of things here. To start with, you know what you are looking at, and you know which phone is which, and the issue is in technology terms, ancient history. If you rewind to when the iPhone was released, not everyone knew about it, it had much lower market penetration, and familiarity levels were much lower. Samsung for the most part made ordinary phones.

If you had heard about the iPhone and went to a shop and saw this, you might well end up buying a different phone to one you intended. That is what Apple have claimed. Also, look at this. If you look at it quickly, you might well think you are looking at an Apple device.

You could also say that if you have to place two devices side by side to tell the difference, that's tantamount to saying that they are so similar that you have to do this.

As the court case has proved, you don't have to copy every single detail in every way such that something is indistinguishable, for it to be a copy.

The US court has judged that the one device clearly breaches the law in relation to IP theft, to the extent that it levied a huge fine. I agree with the points raised regarding patenting visual design, but regardless of whether the law is right, the court judgement was absolutely right. We've had many posts in effect arguing that they were wrong and it wasn't a copy. My posts have been to try to persuade the deniers exactly how and why they are wrong and that stealing ideas or designs is the same as stealing physical objects.

Fundamentally there are a *lot* of fundamental similarities which Samsung could easily have changed to differentiate their product, the same way as all the other Android phones have done (HTC were making elegant phones long before Apple), yet they didn't, and there are too many to plausibly deny the copying accusation.

Come on, be fair - basic design, shape, proportions, interface, icons, charger, packaging. They even ripped off the OSX iTunes icon, for their music player icon.

This is something that Apple got wrong in their court case. They claim Samsung copied the iPhone music icon, which is silly. They didn't - they copied the OS X iTunes icon instead!

As the court case has proved, you don't have to copy every single detail in every way such that something is indistinguishable, for it to be a copy.

The US court has judged that the one device clearly breaches the law in relation to IP theft, to the extent that it levied a huge fine. I agree with the points raised regarding patenting visual design, but regardless of whether the law is right, the court judgement was absolutely right.

Whoa there! So far, all we have is the verdict of one very sloppy and questionable jury. That verdict is right now under intense scrutiny -- as are the patents used by Apple to bring the suit. Methinks that in the end, this verdict will not stand. Whether it's the trial judge, the appeals court, or the Supreme Court, it will be thrown out.

So, no victory yet for Apple. Or, at best, it is an extremely incomplete one.

Whoa there! So far, all we have is the verdict of one very sloppy and questionable jury. That verdict is right now under intense scrutiny -- as are the patents used by Apple to bring the suit. Methinks that in the end, this verdict will not stand. Whether it's the trial judge, the appeals court, or the Supreme Court, it will be thrown out.

If it had not been for the glory hound judge, the corrupt jury foreman, and the fact that the trial was held in Apple's home town, that trial would have been good for a good laugh when the judge dismissed the case.

If it had not been for the glory hound judge, the corrupt jury foreman, and the fact that the trial was held in Apple's home town, that trial would have been good for a good laugh when the judge dismissed the case.

Except that you conveniently define elements that don't fit your argument as 'not significant'. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Graham

About as convenient as telling others not to "go around in circles" by repeating 'debunked' trial documents while ignoring the most damning evidence against Samsung? You've been rather silent on the issue of copying of late.

About as convenient as telling others not to "go around in circles" by repeating 'debunked' trial documents while ignoring the most damning evidence against Samsung? You've been rather silent on the issue of copying of late.

I've been reviewing your posts, but others have jumped in and said what I felt needed saying. There's no sense just repeating things.

Also bear in mind that I agree with you with regard to TouchWiz. I said above that I felt Samsung should be penalised for this. They were clearly trying to move their UI feel closer to the look and feel of iOS.

Sure I have. How are correcting existing UI errors, making type more readable by enlarging it, and removing clutter on a screen iOS UI features? These things simply fall outside your characterization of the document.

This idea of correcting errors is fascinating. It only makes sense if you assume that the only correct way to make a smartphone is Apple's and that anything falling short of that standard is an error. While Samsung certainly felt that way, the reality is that these are design choices, and that God does not look down on the world and decree that there is one, true smartphone UI. Windows phone chose to design differently. Blackberry, for a long time, was designed differently. When you write that Samsung was only correcting errors, you are in effect saying that Samsung copied Apple. The two are synonyms in your argument. Ergo, you still haven't disputed anything I've said. Confirmed it, actually.

Quote:

Well, there ya go! Nothing shows their TRUE intent throughout that whole exercise they did that day than those words. Their intent was not to clone an iphone but to improve their own product in ways that don't infringe but rather enhance their product in common sense ways. They had no idea at that time that in a few years, Apple would be making excessive infringement claims in front of a runaway jury!

Their true intentions were to copy as much as possible while changing just enough to avoid getting caught. It didn't work, mostly because they forgot to change anything.

Quote:

While I agree the phone app icon is very similar to that in iOS, I disagree strongly that the contacts icon is "nearly identical" to that in iOS. Maybe only if you're color blind and have no sense of design whatsoever. The two icons look totally different.

At any rate, one phone icon does not a "copy" make in terms of the entire interface. And it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the document was more to correct and improve rather than to "copy."

Both apps are blatant copies. There are several others I haven't yet posted here, too. I can see some more slides are in order to make you understand.

I've been reviewing your posts, but others have jumped in and said what I felt needed saying. There's no sense just repeating things.

Also bear in mind that I agree with you with regard to TouchWiz. I said above that I felt Samsung should be penalised for this. They were clearly trying to move their UI feel closer to the look and feel of iOS.

This idea of correcting errors is fascinating. It only makes sense if you assume that the only correct way to make a smartphone is Apple's and that anything falling short of that standard is an error. While Samsung certainly felt that way, the reality is that these are design choices, and that God does not look down on the world and decree that there is one, true smartphone UI. Windows phone chose to design differently. Blackberry, for a long time, was designed differently. When you write that Samsung was only correcting errors, you are in effect saying that Samsung copied Apple. The two are synonyms in your argument. Ergo, you still haven't disputed anything I've said. Confirmed it, actually.

How are duplicate icons on a UI screen not an error? How is the keyboard obscuring a text field not a UI error? Can you answer that specifically?

There is no patent for errorless UI screens, legible type, or uncluttered space. Oh, unless you're Apple and you think you can get away with patenting anything under the sun.

And I never said that Samsung "was only correcting errors." Read again. I said that in those first 10 instances in the document, two were corrections of errors, and another 4 were increasing legibility or uncluttering screen space. And that therefore based on those first 10 examples, you mischaracterized the nature of the document.

Quote:

Their true intentions were to copy as much as possible while changing just enough to avoid getting caught. It didn't work, mostly because they forgot to change anything.

Nope. Their true intentions were just as stated in the document. To fix errors and improve the UI but to try avoid infringing on Apple. It didn't work because their efforts collided with an out of control U.S. patent system and a jury run amok!

Quote:

Both apps are blatant copies. There are several others I haven't yet posted here, too. I can see some more slides are in order to make you understand.

No. The second one clearly isn't. There very well may be others that are, so be my guest if you want to keep exercising your formidable copy and paste skills. That won't change the fact that the contacts icon is very different.